this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2025
71 points (100.0% liked)

politics

26576 readers
743 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan warned that the Supreme Court's decision in the Texas redistricting case will lead to a "violation of the Constitution" of voter rights.

The Supreme Court issued an unsigned decision in favor of freezing the initial 2-1 U.S. federal court ruling against Texas Governor Greg Abbott's proposed redistricting map, a stay that could help Republicans pick up five additional U.S. House seats in next year's midterms.

"This Court’s stay ensures that many Texas citizens, for no good reason, will be placed in electoral districts because of their race," Kagan wrote in her dissent. "And that result, as this Court has pronounced year in and year out, is a violation of the Constitution."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 2 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

Oh yeah just better hand it over for the next 50 years when no one else cares about their names or blames them if they do. This is peak lemmy.

[–] witten@lemmy.world 0 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

My point isn't that they should be concerned about their reputations. Rather, that by staying on the court, they're lending the legitimacy of their names and reputations to an illegitimate court—thereby helping prop up an authoritarian regime. The sooner people broadly agree that the court is illegitimate, the sooner its power to support the regime crumbles.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

No they aren't lending legitimacy, and no they are not helping prop up, and no its power won't crumble. And no, they will think about the big picture rather than throwing a tantrum and quitting which won't accomplish anything. Scratch that, not only will it not accomptlish anything, quitting will set back the country another 50 years. The intelligent thing to do is to stay, for alllll the reasons I have already outlined. I'm just repeating myself and you are not absorbing anything so I'm out.

[–] witten@lemmy.world -1 points 13 hours ago